Welcome!

Hello, Janus von Abaton, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Corballis, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Fiddle Faddle 12:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Corballis

The article Corballis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article shows a pretty standard Professor. Nothing in it demonstrates that he meets the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC, however. Without this it is unlikely that this article may remain here.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fiddle Faddle 12:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Michael Corballis

The article Michael Corballis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article shows a pretty standard Professor. Nothing in it demonstrates that he meets the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC, however. Without this it is unlikely that this article may remain here.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fiddle Faddle 12:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Respond

I am sorry to hear this. I am a German wikipedia author. And I contribute mainly to the German wikipedia in the field of language evolution and system theory. Mr. Corballis published 6 Books and is very important in the context of language evolution. In the German Wikipedia we have the criteria of 2 Book for a general Public as minimal. PLEASE HAVE A LOOK HOW MANY LINKS WILL GO TO THIS PAGE FORM WITHIN WIKIPEDIA. Janus von Abaton (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All you need to do is to expand the article here with sufficient information to pass WP:ACADEMIC and the PROD may be removed. You may remove it yourself at that point. Fiddle Faddle 12:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When an article has the incorrect title

Instead of blanking the original and creating a new one, please use the MOVE facility. This migrates the article and its talk page to the new title, and keeps all the history intact. Not only does this save you a lot of work, it is a Wikipedia 'rule'. The necessity is to preserve all the history for licencing purposes, something that some people even pretend to understand.

New users may not move articles until they have won their spurs, so to speak. But one can ask someone else to move the article in that case. Fiddle Faddle 12:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Respond II

I have two convincing arguments: he is an author of book for a general public (that means even if he would not pass the WP:ACADEMIC he should stay because he is an auther) and the other argument is that he is mentioned in various Wikipedia articls. Have a look: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&redirs=1&profile=default&search=Corballis

If there would be 10 Links form Wikipedia pages to Michael Corballis, would it really make sense to delete it? Here you see the 10 Backlinks:

David Breuer-Weil ‎
Foresight (psychology) ‎
Feedforward, Behavioral and Cognitive Science ‎
Deep social mind ‎
Chronesthesia
Contingent perceptual aftereffect ‎
Origin of language ‎ (→‎Gestural theory)
Neuro-linguistic programming ‎ (→‎Scientific criticism)
Origin of speech ‎
Split-brain ‎ (→‎Role of the corpus callosum)

You seem to be missing the point. If you improve the Corballis article to assert his notability and verify that then you may remove the PROD yourself. Your arguments are neither convincing nor unconvincing, they are in the wrong place and do not improve the article. Backlinks are not relevant on the English Wikipedia. Notability and verifiability are non negotiable. Fiddle Faddle 15:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

++* It is great to talk to you, because it is such a different tone and quite an experience! Well, the backlinks show that he is quoted a lot. And of cause it improves the article that there are 10 links. We have to distinguish between two questions: 1) is it a good article and 2) should there be an article on the subject. I can try to improve the article, but I am not a native speaker and also have a deadline coming up. But I just was surprised that there was not article about him though he is quoted in various papers I was reading. http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wM6qVlgAAAAJ&hl=de

As you can see the link you added has been sufficient for the notability to be asserted, and to be verified. Thank you for doing what was necessary. You could have removed the PROD with pleasure, I chose to do it in your place. My tone, perhaps it is formal. But we are dealing with formal matters. Articles must meet a certain standard or they must go. If the German Wikipedia considers backlinks important that is interesting. The English one does not. The two are similar but also different. The English one absolutely requires a very high standard. It does not always achieve the standards it sets for itself.

With regard to your questions: (1) It is not yet a good article. It is, now, an acceptable article. We hope others will improve it, but it is not yet safe here. More work needs to be done to ensure its safety. (2) Of course there should be an article on this subject, because you have proved that he is notable. The reverse is also true. You may verify that I exist by searching for my name, but I am not notable. When I was an expert in my field my work might have been notable, but I was not notable myself. Therefore there should be no article on me. If my work reached the threshold where it was sufficiently notable for Wikipedia then an article should have been created. My view is that it did not do so.

Does that make more sense to you? Fiddle Faddle 21:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinking

Hi, and thanks for your work on the English Wikipedia. Just a short note to point out that we don’t normally link:

dates
years
commonly known geographical terms (including well-known country-names), and
common terms you’d look up in a dictionary (unless significantly technical).

Thanks and my best wishes.

Tony (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oh! - Sorry, we handle this different on the German Wikipedia. See for example: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin. Best --Janus von Abaton (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Carlos Santana. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]